Re: Contributing to gdb

[shaunak saha via Gdb <gdb@sourceware.org>]

Hi Guinevere,

Thanks for confirming. I checked the bug 10645 in an x86 system. I don't
see the issue anymore:

Continuing.
[infrun] clear_proceed_status_thread: 17395.17395.0
[infrun] proceed: enter
  [infrun] follow_fork: enter
  [infrun] follow_fork: exit
  [infrun] proceed: cur_thr = 17395.17395.0
  [infrun] proceed: addr=0xffffffffffffffff, signal=GDB_SIGNAL_DEFAULT,
resume_ptid=17395.0.0
  [infrun] scoped_disable_commit_resumed: reason=proceeding
  [infrun] start_step_over: enter
    [infrun] start_step_over: stealing global queue of threads to step,
length = 0
    [infrun] operator(): step-over queue now empty
  [infrun] start_step_over: exit
  [infrun] proceed: start: resuming threads, all-stop-on-top-of-non-stop
    [infrun] proceed_resume_thread_checked: resuming 17395.17395.0
    [infrun] resume_1:* step=0*, signal=GDB_SIGNAL_0, trap_expected=0,
current thread [17395.17395.0] at 0x55555555514b
    [infrun] do_target_resume: resume_ptid=17395.17395.0, step=0,
sig=GDB_SIGNAL_0
  [infrun] proceed: end: resuming threads, all-stop-on-top-of-non-stop
  [infrun] reset: reason=proceeding

I can see the step is 0.

>https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31911
Thanks for creating the bug. I am looking into it and trying to understand
the code.

Regards,
Shaunak




On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 5:07 AM Guinevere Larsen <blarsen@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 6/19/24 4:38 AM, shaunak saha wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >>> Hello! Welcome welcome, we always love to have new contributors :)
> > Thanks a lot for the warm welcome.
> >
> >>> For watchpoints, the first bug that that page mentions is still open,
> >>> but apparently the last mention of anything related to it was in 2014
> >>> (the 2024 comment is unrelated), so you could first check if you can
> >>> still reproduce the issue, and maybe try to fix or close the bug if it
> >>> can't be reproduced anymore. I'm also a big fan of improving user
> >>> experience, so the second thing about watchpoints (and the misuse of
> the
> >>> word scope) is something I'd love to see, if you're interested in
> fixing it.
> > Sure, I will check as this will help me to get used to the gdb
> > development environment also better. Just to confirm, Is this the bug
> > you mentioned? "https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10645"
> Yes, this was the bug I was thinking of.
> >
> >>> And for internals, if I may do a bit of promotion of my favorite area,
> >>> right now reverse debugging has a big problem: We rely on recording the
> >>> execution history of the inferior in a global variable, which is
> totally
> >>> not feasible if someone wants to record multiple inferiors at once. I'd
> >>> love to see a rework of this area that makes the history specific to an
> >>> inferior instead of relying on a global var. This could be pretty
> >>> complicated, as I don't exactly know how someone would go about doing
> >>> this and it might touch a couple different subsystems, but if you'd
> like
> >>> your first contribution to be tough as nails, I know I would love to
> see
> >>> it :)
> > Actually this is one of the areas I am very interested in too. This
> > would be a really good learning experience for me. For the rework of
> > the global variable issues can you please point me to the bug if it's
> > there. I can start by learning more about it.
>
> There wasn't a bug yet, but I just created one
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31911
>
> I tried to add my thoughts on how this could be done, but this was
> thought in the moment, no real research into what's possible or
> reasonable. I just so happened to  be working close to this area and had
> many unstructured thoughts hahaha
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Guinevere Larsen
> She/Her/Hers
>
> >
> >>> If you want some help understanding some bits of GDB, feel free to
> reach
> >>> out on IRC (#gdb on libera chat), and if you feel shy about asking
> >>> questions in public, feel free to reach to me privately :) (though I
> >>> mostly only answer on work hours for Brazil).
> > Thanks a lot. I will reach out on IRC or ask you over email for my
> doubts.
> >
> >>> Just a heads up, too, if your patch isn't a trivial fix, you might need
> >>> to sign a bit of paperwork giving the copyright of changes to GDB to
> the
> >>> Free Software Foundation before we are able to accept the changes. I
> >>> mention this up front because I know a few people who were turned off
> by
> >>> the idea, even though the process itself isn't complicated.
> > I understand. I am ok with signing the paperwork with FSF. I am
> > guessing that would not be a problem with my employer but I will still
> > check.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Shaunak
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 5:22 AM Guinevere Larsen <blarsen@redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >> On 6/14/24 6:52 PM, shaunak saha via Gdb wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> I am new to the community and I'd like to contribute to gdb. I have 15
> >>> years of development experience in C mainly working in embedded
> >>> domain. Went through the project ideas page
> >>> "https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/ProjectIdeas". I would be interested
> >>> to contribute in areas like Embedded Debugging, watchpoints or
> >>> internals. Any suggestion would be great.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Shaunak
> >>>
> >> Hello! Welcome welcome, we always love to have new contributors :)
> >>
> >> My first thought with regards to that page is that I don't know how up
> >> to date it is... the last update seems to be back in 2021, which is from
> >> before I joined the project. That said, I think there is plenty of
> >> things to do in the areas you mentioned.
> >>
> >> For embedded debugging, unfortunately I have no idea what the situation
> is.
> >>
> >> For watchpoints, the first bug that that page mentions is still open,
> >> but apparently the last mention of anything related to it was in 2014
> >> (the 2024 comment is unrelated), so you could first check if you can
> >> still reproduce the issue, and maybe try to fix or close the bug if it
> >> can't be reproduced anymore. I'm also a big fan of improving user
> >> experience, so the second thing about watchpoints (and the misuse of the
> >> word scope) is something I'd love to see, if you're interested in
> fixing it.
> >>
> >> And for internals, if I may do a bit of promotion of my favorite area,
> >> right now reverse debugging has a big problem: We rely on recording the
> >> execution history of the inferior in a global variable, which is totally
> >> not feasible if someone wants to record multiple inferiors at once. I'd
> >> love to see a rework of this area that makes the history specific to an
> >> inferior instead of relying on a global var. This could be pretty
> >> complicated, as I don't exactly know how someone would go about doing
> >> this and it might touch a couple different subsystems, but if you'd like
> >> your first contribution to be tough as nails, I know I would love to see
> >> it :)
> >>
> >>
> >> Once you decided on something to work on, if it isn't something that
> >> feels obvious to you or feels like it could depend on some design
> >> decisions, I recommend sending a very simple prototype as an RFC to the
> >> gdb-patches@sourceware list, so people can discuss if your approach
> >> makes sense.
> >>
> >> If you want some help understanding some bits of GDB, feel free to reach
> >> out on IRC (#gdb on libera chat), and if you feel shy about asking
> >> questions in public, feel free to reach to me privately :) (though I
> >> mostly only answer on work hours for Brazil).
> >>
> >>
> >> Just a heads up, too, if your patch isn't a trivial fix, you might need
> >> to sign a bit of paperwork giving the copyright of changes to GDB to the
> >> Free Software Foundation before we are able to accept the changes. I
> >> mention this up front because I know a few people who were turned off by
> >> the idea, even though the process itself isn't complicated.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Cheers,
> >> Guinevere Larsen
> >> She/Her/Hers
> >>
>
>